Plantinga: Chapter 1

The following is my attempt to lay out the structure of the argument of Chapter 1. 

General Argument of Entire Chapter

1.    The biological reasons R for accepting evolution (theses 1-4) and Darwinism (theses 1-5) are not reasons for accepting naturalism (thesis 6).

2.    Theism in general and Christianity, in particular, are not incompatible with either evolution (theses 1-4) or Darwinism (thesis 5).

3.    Hence, theism in general and Christianity, in particular, are not incompatible with R (the reasons for evolution and Darwinism)

4.    Theism in general and Christianity, in particular, are incompatible with naturalism. 

5.    But there are no biological reasons for accepting naturalism. (restatement of 1) 

6.    Hence, there are no biological reasons for thinking that theism in general or Christianity, in particular, are incompatible with biology. 


More Simply

1*. Theism in general and Christianity, in particular, are incompatible with naturalism. 

2*.  But there are no biological reasons for accepting naturalism. 

3*.  Hence, there are no biological reasons for thinking that theism in general or Christianity, in particular, are incompatible with biology. 

The premises that need defending (and Plantinga does defend them) are 1 and 2 (or 2*).

What are the reasons Plantinga gives for thinking both 1 and 2 true?
What do you think of those reasons?








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders?  We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know.  ...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more